Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court's decision on campaign financing

[Douglas Carpenter]

Source: Washington Post

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 17, 2010; 7:00 AM

Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).

The results suggest a strong reservoir of bipartisan support on the issue for President Obama and congressional Democrats, who are in the midst of crafting legislation aimed at limiting the impact of the high court's decision. Likely proposals include banning participation in U.S. elections by government contractors, bank bailout recipients or companies with more than 20 percent foreign ownership.

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and other Republican lawmakers have praised the ruling as a victory for free speech and have signaled their intent to oppose any legislation intended to blunt the impact of the court's decision

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the high court ruled 5-4 that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech and can therefore use their profits to support or oppose individual candidates. The decision appears to open the door to unlimited spending by corporations, trade groups and unions in the weeks leading up to an election, which has been explicitly banned for decades

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

[ck4829]

1. So, will Democrats capitalize on this or are they going to be "bipartisan"?

[veganlush]

2. You would think they would get working on a Constitutional

..Amendment, as Thom Hartmann suggests, that stipulates that corporations are not persons. That would take care of much of the problem here. And the Poll you show implies that there would be support for it. Unfortunately, Harry Reid and company are paralyzed with fear and won't take this opportunity apparently. Thanks for posting this important piece.:grr: :shrug: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[jody]

7. Agree and also abolish limited liability for stockholders. Let their personal fortunes go to pay for

their corporation's bankruptcy.

[Earth_First]

3. Well maybe if 6 out of 10 of them turned off American Idol and paid attention...

Just sayin'
:shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

4. In 9 years in polling I don't remember seeing numbers that high or non-partisan. nt

[pattmarty]

5. AND, not a god damn thing will be done about it either. Look at.............

............the original "bailout" and how many people were opposed to that. They had 2 votes and the first was overwhelmingly against the bailout. a few weeks later when everyone went back to sleep, they passed it. My opinion, we are dangerously close to similar events in the US back during the early depression years. Already you are seeing a coming together of different opinionated groups to fight against government corruption. I still have a "little" hope left for this country, but not much.

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. one kick

[defendandprotect]

8. Impeachment now doesn't seem so ridiculous --- and rw is with us on this!!

[Incitatus]

10. someone created a website for that

http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1030.php

[SoCalDem]

9. and how much does this bother Roberts, Scalia, Alito & the quiet one?

[defendandprotect]

11. True . .. there should have been a huge penalty for the 2000 decision, as well --

We are reluctant to admit it because it is a shock,

but the power has long been shifted to fascists --

and that's pretty much where we are!